Is Tesla Making Promises About Batteries They Can't Keep?

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,500
Elon Musk makes many statements, and promises, about his ventures all the time. Over at Bloomberg, they are opining that his promises for batteries in his new roadster and semi products are slightly unbelievable. I tend to side with their opinion. However, only time will tell and I suspect he's going to hit his targets much farther in the future than he is currently projecting.

These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado. In some cases, experts suspect Tesla might be banking on technological improvements between now and the time when new vehicles are actually ready for delivery.
 
He has made a lot of promises that's for sure. It's absolutely apparent that he is anticipating technology improvements and cost reductions occurring. It's a gamble if those actually come about, but I don't think it's a particularly risky bet - as there are a lot of companies aside from just Tesla doing a lot of energy storage research right now.

Elon has always been hyper aggressive on timelines. That part you can just double and then you might be in the ballpark, but that's the sign of any good developer - they put together a realistic schedule, but then realize there are a lot of factors that are outside of your control. If all of those factors actually swing your way - the timelines Elon has are plausible. But you can only roll 7's so long before you throw craps.

Elon may be off on his timeline, but he won't be off on the tech or the capability. It's all coming, it's just a matter of when.
 
Elon may be off on his timeline, but he won't be off on the tech or the capability. It's all coming, it's just a matter of when.
Timeline is only one of the most important factors, though.
 

Well not really, by the time such technology (if real) becomes viable cost-wise and has ramped up production, his gigafactory will have paid for itself many times over.

I think at least a decade before a new battery technology is affordable.
 
I'm assuming the newer vehicles will use the Tesla Panasonic 22700 cells . They're supposedly more efficient per gram of weight and have been in the works for a long time. Originally estimated at around 30% more energy density.

The rest of what he's claimed (600mile range) is doable, as you're just throwing more cells at the vehicle. If the Model S can do 300miles on a 1kWh battery, it would make sense that doubling the capacity with slight improvements in efficiency (to offset the added weight) and a lighter (more expensive) car should allow for near double the mileage.

There's no voodoo in the projected numbers, the P100d w/ 100kWh battery does EPA 315-330mi. That battery weighs around 1500lbs. Doubling the capacity (with no change in battery tech) puts it at 3000lbs. If they can shave enough weight off the car elsewhere, it'd hit the number. Being a Roadster, it's already lighter. I'd assume it's meant to compete with more expensive "sports/super" cars and be limited in production, so it's possible they can shave a lot with carbon fiber.
 
Last edited:
It's a stretch, the battery range claims... But do you wanna know what else "isn't possible..."

ZKyVkrt.gif
 
I think the aggressive timelines are what makes Elon Elon; he makes us believe that things are possible now, not at some unknown distant time in the future.
 
He has made a lot of promises that's for sure. It's absolutely apparent that he is anticipating technology improvements and cost reductions occurring. It's a gamble if those actually come about, but I don't think it's a particularly risky bet - as there are a lot of companies aside from just Tesla doing a lot of energy storage research right now.

Elon has always been hyper aggressive on timelines. That part you can just double and then you might be in the ballpark, but that's the sign of any good developer - they put together a realistic schedule, but then realize there are a lot of factors that are outside of your control. If all of those factors actually swing your way - the timelines Elon has are plausible. But you can only roll 7's so long before you throw craps.

Elon may be off on his timeline, but he won't be off on the tech or the capability. It's all coming, it's just a matter of when.
He is also "off" on his treatment of workers at Tesla's auto assembly plant in California. He has alienated hundred of production workers with his unkept promises and low wages. he recently fired several dozen experienced workers. Just another capitalist bastard who will be taken down eventually.
 
He is also "off" on his treatment of workers at Tesla's auto assembly plant in California. He has alienated hundred of production workers with his unkept promises and low wages. he recently fired several dozen experienced workers. Just another capitalist bastard who will be taken down eventually.

That I do not disagree with.
 
Elon Musk makes many statements, and promises, about his ventures all the time. Over at Bloomberg, they are opining that his promises for batteries in his new roadster and semi products are slightly unbelievable. I tend to side with their opinion. However, only time will tell and I suspect he's going to hit his targets much farther in the future than he is currently projecting.

These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado. In some cases, experts suspect Tesla might be banking on technological improvements between now and the time when new vehicles are actually ready for delivery.
No one is truly famous until they get they've earned their own conspiracy - with that said, congratulations Elon!
 
I'm assuming the newer vehicles will use the Tesla Panasonic 22700 cells . They're supposedly more efficient per gram of weight and have been in the works for a long time. Originally estimated at around 30% more energy density.

The rest of what he's claimed (600mile range) is doable, as you're just throwing more cells at the vehicle. If the Model S can do 300miles on a 1kWh battery, it would make sense that doubling the capacity with slight improvements in efficiency (to offset the added weight) and a lighter (more expensive) car should allow for near double the mileage.

There's no voodoo in the projected numbers, the P100d w/ 100kWh battery does EPA 315-330mi. That battery weighs around 1500lbs. Doubling the capacity (with no change in battery tech) puts it at 3000lbs. If they can shave enough weight off the car elsewhere, it'd hit the number. Being a Roadster, it's already lighter. I'd assume it's meant to compete with more expensive "sports/super" cars and be limited in production, so it's possible they can shave a lot with carbon fiber.


Plus, for max range, flat highway cruising, the total weight isn't even all that relevant.
 
According to an article in jalopnik who spoke with an expert at carnegie mellon it's highly likely that Tesla can deliver the goods. Read it for yourself https://jalopnik.com/heres-what-a-battery-researcher-told-us-about-the-tesla-1820558723 Don't rely on some wall street media who is probably shorting stock while they are spreading stories. Listen to engineers not low life bankers. Watch the movie the big short before you trust bankers.
 
It's a stretch, the battery range claims... But do you wanna know what else "isn't possible..."

ZKyVkrt.gif
Aren't you confusing feasible vs possible? How many first stages have they reused so far?.It doesn't look good compared to not landing the boosters at all, which much simplifies the design, reduces the carried fuel, which is one of the biggest cost factor.
It seems like they land the fist stage for the sake of landing it, and not for any practical reason. It's more of a marketing stunt so far than an economically beneficial endeavor, but it seems to be working. Maybe they'll start re-using them in large scale later, but it remains to be seen how many times can one be re-used without a complete rebuild, and how does it compare in costs to an actual throw away booster.
 
It's to illustrate possibility, and to ultimately refine it into something practical.

As opposed to "neh, this will always be a $400,000,000~ expense" every launch...

You seem to be confused that it's already 1/5th the cost of what we were doing...

EDIT: Had way too many zero's in there... Surprised nobody caught the 400b vs 400m mistake...
 
Last edited:
Shit, Tesla promises to ship people cars, they don't always keep that one either.
What was the last quarterly loss? 638 million? Investing in Tesla seems pretty speculative and risky on the surface. I'm convinced there is no way for this company to fail. They have so much capital pumped into them and continue to receive it. The investors have drunk the koolaid and we all know what happens once things get to a certain size. Failure is not allowed no matter what.
 
Tesla is about being a pioneer in electric vehicles and power storage. Profitability is not the short term goal. I have a healthy respect for that. I don't respect treating the people poorly who are doing the ground work. :(
 
Aren't you confusing feasible vs possible? How many first stages have they reused so far?.It doesn't look good compared to not landing the boosters at all, which much simplifies the design, reduces the carried fuel, which is one of the biggest cost factor.
It seems like they land the fist stage for the sake of landing it, and not for any practical reason. It's more of a marketing stunt so far than an economically beneficial endeavor, but it seems to be working. Maybe they'll start re-using them in large scale later, but it remains to be seen how many times can one be re-used without a complete rebuild, and how does it compare in costs to an actual throw away booster.

How did you manage to fit all that crap is a single post?

1. They reused 3 stages already, with 2-4 more to be reused before the end of the year. 7 would represent 1/3 of 1st stages launched by SpaceX in 2017

2. Preparing 1st reused stage (on which they deliberately did much more work and testing than on later reused stages) including recovery cost was less than 50% of what it would have cost them to build a new 1st stage. Falcon 9 Block 5 which is scheduled to start flying in Q1 2018 (its currently being build and is expected to be on test stand by the end on 2017) is designed so that it only needs an inspection before flights with refurbishment after 10 flights.

3. Fuel and oxidizer are less than 2% of launch cost - its one the smallest cost factors

It would be nice if clueless idiots like you stopped posting about topics where they have no understanding of even basic facts...
 
How did you manage to fit all that crap is a single post?

1. They reused 3 stages already, with 2-4 more to be reused before the end of the year. 7 would represent 1/3 of 1st stages launched by SpaceX in 2017

2. Preparing 1st reused stage (on which they deliberately did much more work and testing than on later reused stages) including recovery cost was less than 50% of what it would have cost them to build a new 1st stage. Falcon 9 Block 5 which is scheduled to start flying in Q1 2018 (its currently being build and is expected to be on test stand by the end on 2017) is designed so that it only needs an inspection before flights with refurbishment after 10 flights.

3. Fuel and oxidizer are less than 2% of launch cost - its one the smallest cost factors

It would be nice if clueless idiots like you stopped posting about topics where they have no understanding of even basic facts...

1. Thanks so they re-used 3 once. Not a big number is it? You're acting as if that 1/3 is such a big part.

2. Preparing is not the full cost of a reusable rocket. There is all the extra equipment needed to perform the re-entry You can't just ignore those costs. That you need to carry into orbit in the first place, and they needed to be developed. And depending on how many times a first stage can be reused they're yet to recoup the costs. That's all I'm stating. I'm not saying it's a stupid idea, just hold off with crowning musk a saint until it actually proves to be profitable.

3. You pulled that number out of your arse didn't you? Or did you miss the fact that effective payload is less than 2/3 on a recoverable rocket compared to an expendable one? Of course it doesn't matter if the payload is small anyway, but then they could just use a smaller rocket in the first place. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Sure, call the person disagreeing with you an idiot, that's sure to convince them that they're wrong!
 
1. Thanks so they re-used 3 once. Not a big number is it? You're acting as if that 1/3 is such a big part.

2. Preparing is not the full cost of a reusable rocket. There is all the extra equipment needed to perform the re-entry You can't just ignore those costs. That you need to carry into orbit in the first place, and they needed to be developed. And depending on how many times a first stage can be reused they're yet to recoup the costs. That's all I'm stating. I'm not saying it's a stupid idea, just hold off with crowning musk a saint until it actually proves to be profitable.

3. You pulled that number out of your arse didn't you? Or did you miss the fact that effective payload is less than 2/3 on a recoverable rocket compared to an expendable one? Of course it doesn't matter if the payload is small anyway, but then they could just use a smaller rocket in the first place. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Sure, call the person disagreeing with you an idiot, that's sure to convince them that they're wrong!

1. for a first year it is more than most people expected

2. those items were included in that "less than 50%" - and only physical difference between Flacon 9 reusable and expendable configurations are grid fins and landing legs (both pretty minor items from cost perspective)

1st stage never achieves orbital velocity, so I don't know what this crap even means: "That you need to carry into orbit in the first place, and they needed to be developed" - if you are referring to reusability related HW that are just legs and grid fins - all other HW would be needed even for expendable launch

Can you even read? Including all related direct costs, even in 1st case of Falcon 9 1st stage reuse it cost them less than 50% of what it would cost them to build a new 1st stage

3. Source of that number are several statements from SpaceX (Elon Musk, Gwynne Shotwell etc.) and can easily be verified using publicly available info about Falcon 9 RP-1 and LOX capacity and known cost of RP-1/LOX. Customers don't care if there is any fuel left in the 1st stage - customers only care if their payload is delivered to agreed orbit. And SpaceX has a separate price for a Falcon 9 launch in reusable and expendable configuration - it's up to a customer to chose what he wants to pay for.

Its far cheaper to have a single variant of a rocket and have an excessive performance for most missions, than to have a ton of variants that require additional HW for more demanding missions - and building a slightly bigger RP-1/LOX tank isn't a major expense.

The proof is in the pudding - in this case, SpaceX being able to sell a commercial launch for $62M (allegedly +-$57M for a launch with reused 1st stage) when Arianespace and ULA are far more expensive and even Russians have problems competing with SpaceX on a launch price.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top